It's a not fair comparison, but for the most part it shows that you can built a muscle car for just as much money or less to compete with the new versions. P.S. that Flowmaster exhaust sounds sick!
Dude it's an effing Hotchkis, how do you even pretend that's a fair comparison to the roll-off-the-factory-line SRT8? One's worth about 50K, the other probably 200-300K. I'll let you decide which is which. All told the SRT8 performed very well against such a monster competitor.
You would think by the title of this video that its about a new car vs an old car, but its not. It's a video about a new car vs another heavily modified new car dressed up like an old car. Edmunds posts videos here just to confuse people.
So they take a 1970's Challenger with tuner modified, modern, upgraded suspension, steering and brakes and put it up against a 2010 stock challenger? I would expect it to handle better if the only thing stock from 1970 is the body...
Hotchkis more than likely only used their lowering rear leaf springs to keep with the theme without going overboard creating a custom one of a kind 4-link setup, to show that you can practically bolt on all their upgrades.
@shaff912 Here is the thing, it's not that radically changed. The front suspension only has the upper A-arms swapped out for the firm feel inc. tubular steel units, stiffer torsion bars and an antisway bar. All things the new car has because that's what you would do for modern tires. All they did was what the factory would have done had they had todays tires.
@buttholeeat69810 Lol my ass, crash the 2010 "Challenger" and it's done for. Piece of cheap shit. Any classic car could withstand a crash 10x harder than the garbage of today. I've seen a Charger that got into an accident, and let's just say it looked more like a smart car afterwards ;D
I think he is responding more to the old challengers feel sound and so on ? than the modifications. It's true it makes you what to giggle when you drive older one. I would love to have seen his response to a big block. I would say the comparison is like digital to analog something is lost in the conversion.
yo dawg, we heard you like challenges so we challenged a challenger verus a challenger so you can challenge the challengers while challenging the challenge
What is it with people. It's like they don't believe that "old school" was anything. I say to them, don't knock it 'til you've tried it. If it weren't for the power and brute of "old school" you guys would still be driving Corvairs and Austin Americas! Old school can be very respectable in comparisons...oh wait NO CUPHOLDERS? Sh!t...
@dutchboy25al have you seen the cult energy series challenger?! with an engine like that i am proud to call the new challenger my generations version of the true American muscle car and also proud to say that the muscle car lives on in my generation! YouTube "cult energy challenger" and you'll see what i mean.
I do love these new Challengers...but I have to admit the braking could be a little better. For a 3800-4200 pound car the handling is pretty impressive and has a lot better feel than my 2001 Impala LS's "magnetic" steering...but it's not quite as zippy on the highway when it comes to weaving in and out.
Yo , driving on lights in the middle of the day on a desert road - totally wrong .... That does not look good in any way.... WHY EVER USE THEM IN THIS TEST ???
The comparision of cars standing on lights look ridiculous !! Not better in any way.
Id take the 70s challenger anytime over the 2010 why do they have to go with futureristic piles of junk when they can make it look like the true sports cars from the 60s and 70s. Now keep the 4th generation firebirds though.
Your mom's Rustang isn't going to out-handle that Challenger, buddy. That Challenger would smoke your mama if it was actually set up for drag instead of autocross.
@djt1967ss did i ever say her mustang is set up for drag racing? no i didn't. i said it would beet the challenger in a quarter-mile. To let you know a 67' mustang will handle better then a big old 70' charger any day.
Obviously fair comparing a 340 non hemi to a 371 hemi for the drag strip. let hodgekiss bore that 340 out to somewhere in the ballpark of 355 and it would blow the doors off the new challenger at the drag
The problem is even then...the new numbers are net flywheel, the old numbers are gross without the addons. I've seen 454 LS6's only get about 220-230 horsepower to the wheels with an automatic...the new 392 Hemi is getting 470 to the fly and around 400 to the wheels due to the ever-hungry Chrysler style autos. Think of the new one like a 727 with 2 more gears.
Either way, the new motors are just ridiculous, even the 250 hp V6 model stomps an old 327 4bbl Chevy.
(cont) I mean you wouldn't think so...but my parents bought one of the 2010 SE's before the extra power was given to them factory. In the completely stock format the 5 speed, 250 horsepower V6 even with the -70 horse due to the hungry transmission is faster than the old 67 Camaro RS 327 he had with a 4 speed. Even more embarassing is that the SE Challenger weighs about 600 pounds more than that Camaro did.
Most people are dumb, but I hope not dumb enough to forget that the tool driving the 1970 wasn't driving a STOCK 1970 Challenger. It was modified and tuned for racing in this current age. A stock 1970 against a brand new Challenger would be destroyed along with being outdone in luxury and quality of build. Don't get me wrong I love classic muscle cars but it's not being right if the older car is modded to shit. Plus anyone who dislikes the new Challenger can fuck off, thing is ill!
@111WWEEBB Very true. I mean they had to mod the hell out of the 1970 Challenger just so it would be able to compete with the new challenger, and on top of that had the nerve to say not much has changed over 40 years >_> Shit put the amount of money into the new challenger that they did the old and it would be twice as beastly.
@Samsgarden If it wasn't modified, then you wouldn't even need to watch the video to know the results, now would you? This is just an advertisement so hotchkis can sell their product. Its just to show you old cars can handle and aren't the myth of heavy slow and cant take a corner. Older cars are actually lighter than some of the newest models today, even imported.
What's my incentive for watching got to do with my comment? I like this car but as far as 70's muscle goes, this is not an old vs new comparison. Old American cars DON'T handle or stop, that's why this one is modified heavily.
@Samsgarden I never understood your comment as to why you think it would be an old vs new comparison when this video never claimed to be one. They compare a Hotchkis Challenger to that of the new one. Is that not true? And its not a myth if this 70 challenger can stop in this video? I never said they could handle or stop well stock, you assumed I did. Although this 70 challenger in stock form can go through the slalom at 59mph.which isnt too bad considering todays cars run in the mid 60mph range
@50percentFirebird I think I understand, the title is misleading, maybe it should have read "2010 Challenger vs Hotchkiss1970 Challenger". Nevertheless I think the comparison great because it shows how old school cars built with new tech are superior in performance to the new factory cars. This result highlights the performance robbing weight gain in new cars.
@ericamoorexoxo lol...think of it this way. would you prefer hitting a wall of wood or a wall of concrete? Softer car (not to the point of being cloth) absorb the impact energy over a longer time, wich help ¨cushion¨ the impact.
So right. To call them a Challenger is an insult to the originals. Couldn't give me one; I laugh when they go by. (have a Year-One, 383hp, all original)
mods to the suspension....brakes....tuning...tires.....i kinda just wanted to see a stock 1970 chally vs a new chally.....this vid was kinda pointless considered everything on the older challenger had been modified.
There's 40 years worth of engineering in the aftermarket in the 1970's suspension, TIRES and brakes. You could even make the old one take an ipod right now. lol
i mean dam it would mean something if the 70's challenger was not modified with suspension,brakes and everything else under the sun... like really this is not worth the hype. get a regular 70's vs a 2010 challg. then post that video
the 2010 withstand a crash? i beg to differ, the 2010 is designed to save the driver, not the car, the 1970 is designed to save its tail pipes cause its usually worth more than the car its hitting or the stupid driver driving it. drive a full sized muscle car into a prius and your going to have to replace a headlight at most (on the challenger)
same challenger srt8 vs an original 70's challeger hemi or the 440 six pack and BOTH STOCK
i think the point it's to test their capabilities of the legendary cars... so what's the point of taking a highly modified challeger t/a vs the new one?
k on this ...... 70 challenger is pretty well RACE modified other then the engine, those tires are about 700 bucks a piece .... and i probably cost more to built the 70 then it is to buy the 2010 .. BUT HANDS DOWN EVEN STOCK ID TAKE THE 70 !!!!
Ppl tend to forget the gas guzzling difference and the fact that anyone can work on a muscle car almost. They need computers now in cars to keep mechanics employed
a few minor suspension changes and other tweeks beats the hell out of a maxxed out from the factory ride that has nothing left to give, put a blower on them both and you still have more room to grow with the 1970 , I love the comfort and lack of creaky plastic of the new stuff but the long tall body sides make it look too narrow and it's slolam test prove that you can put sway bars all over it it still wants to roll over when it is too top heavy.
mopar...is short for motor parts. representing the year were the parts were interchangeable between the challenger, charger, dart, roadrunner, and barracuda. i'm 18 and i know what most adults think they know
OH MY GOD, we're 40 years into the future and we cant beat and 4 year old car. the new car designers piss me off because not only do we know know they could do better but they do too. the only reason they dont is to comform to the modern day person, so if a dad buy's a challenger for his daughter its handling wont kill her, WE WANT AN ACTUAL MUSCLE CAR COME ON!!!!!!!!
@randomradicalstuff well the 70 was highly modified and modernized and custom, a stock 70 would probably get trashed but i would still take it any day over ANY new car there is
@randomradicalstuff yeah... but it's weighted down with tons of modern day stuff like airbags and tons of upholstery and electronics and catalytic converters to satisfy the eco terrorists... what's important is how much the old challenger has improved by modernizing the suspension, brakes and wheels/tires etc
@randomradicalstuff they could build something that made the '70 look like it had a slant 6 in it, but between the regulators and lobbyists in Washington, the insurance companies, and the ragheads holding us hostage for oil, it'll never happen.
And there are a lot of places where a female would belong in a car like that...but the driver's seat is not one of them.
My dream car..a classic Challenger. I think the new Challenger is by far the best looking "remake" of any other car out there like the Charger and the Mustang etc.
Although the edmunds guy doesn't believe that 340 is stock, it is or is very close to stock. The 340 is one of, if not the best small block ever made in stock form. Once you start modifying, well that becomes a product of how much money you put into it, not so much what engine you have. In stock form though, the 340 is the best overall when it comes to power band and torque.
@mine1username - Of course my comments are referring to the older small blocks. The newer engines of today are far superior when it comes to power per cubic inch, economy, and emissions. I still love the old stuff though.
@mine1username - meh. Even with the Six-Pak, the 340 only put out 290 horsepower. A stock Camaro from the same era with the solid lifter LT-1 (360 hp) would lay waste to the little 340.
@USAon3 Camaro, hahahahalmaoff, not even close to the legendary 340 dodge, much less the optional 426 Hemi, Chevrolet is a french name by the way just FYI !!!!!!!
@mine1username - on paper yes, but in reality, no way. The horsepower ratings back then were heavily contminated by marketing, and insurance reasons. Some engines were over-rated, and some were underated. All three manufacturers were guilty of this back then. I'd honestly say that the LT-1 is pretty close to true rating, but the 340 was underated. Not just horsepower though, but torque also. I've owned the 340 with a 4 barrel, and I'd bet my paycheck the 340 would win, all else being equal.
Engineering advancement? There was almost no engineering done to that piece of shit they call a 2010 Challenger. It's just a frankenstein car pieced together from other shitty cars and stylized to look like the classic. Nothing more.
@bano11323 Not quite, the new mustang performs superbly as a track and drag car, the challenger is a piece of shit. It has no power, is heavier and handles shittier than the previous challenger. Why? Because it uses a Mercedes Benz luxury chassis and tried to make it sporty. New cars like the Mustang, Corvette, GTR, etc are all essentially original designs, which is why they kick so much ass anywhere they compete.
@0ukami I like how a car that does 0-60 in 4.6 sec and the quarter mile in in 13.0sec is a no power piece of shit car. SRT8 challenger as fast as first generation Viper, C5 vette, want a more current built from the ground up "original designed" car...Maserati GT S is slower than the SRT8 and none of these cars seat five. New school challenger srt8 kills the previous one, not even close...I recommend motor trend issue July 2011 when the put them head to head, its a joke. SRT8 slow....Not quite
@bano11323 LOL Are you seriously trying to compare the challenger to the vette, performance wise? Are you kidding me? Wow, I thought I heard it all. The vette would blow the challenger out of the water on a track. The base model vette has the same times, yet the C5 Z06 (you didn't specify) blows it out of the water. There's no comparing a frankenstein'd bastard child of a mercedes to a superior corvette. Theres more to designing cars then taking a platform and sticking a powerful engine it
@0ukami 0ukami of course I meant the C5, that's awesome how you threw theZ06 in there, probably cause you looked at the numbers and saw the SRT8 beat the C5, a car that was 40k back then!! anyway as far as Why? 9.4lbs per HP for the vette, 8.8lbs per HP for the SRT8. Less wt per hp with its 470HP engine.Top speed 174 C5 to 183 SRT8.HP to WT ratio favors Challenger . Track example, MT figure 8, 07 GT500 25.8 sec SRT8 25.3 sec. Numbers don't lie. like it or not SRT8 is fast, It's ALIVE, ALIVE
@bano11323 Well, the Z06 is a model of the C5 chassis, just to let you know, since you didn't. Anyways, power per pound is just a rough estimate, not necessarily an accurate one. The most accurate way would be WHP per lb per RPM. This would take into account drivetrain losses, and also powerband figures influenced proportionately by torque. This would be more accurate. When I see the SRT8 starting to overtake the Corvette in the 24 Hours Le Mans, I will agree with you, until then...
@0ukami you seem like a smart guy, which is why I don't understand why you bring up the Z06 when my argument was the SRT8 is as fast as a C5 vette, you know the one that is 40k like the srt8, now you are bringing up race cars from Le Mans against a street car??. My point was, again MY POINT was SRT8 VS C5 VETTE comparison...not Z06 which is twice the price and no way will an SRT beat that or a race car from Le Mans. BASE VETTE VS SRT8... SRT8 higher top speed and equal 0 to 60 & 1/4mile. FACT
@0ukami Race cars from Le Mans against a street car?? My point to you was that SRT8 is as fast as a C5 vette, not the Z06, a car x2 the price or now a race car. The SRT8 would never ever beat those two cars..EVER. Now SRT vs C5 vette base model the one thats 40k are equal. Thats my point...SRT VS C5 VETTE. SRT higher top speed, and equal 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. But anyway you agree with me, in the 5th sentence on your 2nd reply you stated C5 equal to SRT8. Thanks you see things my way
@bano11323 Well, yes I do agree that essentially they are equal from the factory, and that the difference between drivers will have a much more dramatic affect than the cars performance will. However, the Corvette does have a superior design, so it does have far more performance potential, with modifications of course. Stock for stock, the SRT8, like you said, can hold it's own well, but the inherent design flaws will surface once it is being pushed further and further.
@bano11323 the SRT8 is also over $46 grand. For less money I could buy a Camaro SS and go faster, or spend even less for a Mustang GT and go even faster.
The new Challenger is just a 300C with a body kit, built at a compromise for profit by nostalgia. Considering what else is out there for less money, yes, the Challenger is the POS.
@USAon3 Chevy dealerships have let the Camaro SS go out the lot in the mid 40 grand range, don't kid yourself on a list price. Even so you need to do more research on your numbers. SRT8 now faster than Camaro SS .fact. Challenger a 300C body kit?? Well the 300 was car of the year 2005. But anyway...put these three next to each other 20yrs from now we will see which one you'll want to be seen in...Sure the mustang is faster, but no one is looking..USA on 3?? Support american Muscle man
@bano11323 I'm a die hard Mustang fan, & I guaranty a lot of people are looking. A lot of customers are looking too, because Dodge is being handily outsold by ford. That wouldn't be possible w/o someone, or several million paying attention. That old school dodge is awesome, but I like the new ones to. Could you imagine what would be happening had hotchkins gotten a hold of the 440 six pack, or the hemi? Now that is something worth dreaming about. I love American muscle, nothing like it anywhere.
You can take your crash safety and your aerodynamics and your noise reduction and you can shove it right up your arse. Give me a V8 and some pushrods and see what happens on the track.
No car ANYWHERE will ever beat the 1970 challenger.. There is no car out there that I've ever seen that was better looking. I would kill for any 1970 challenger.
It's a not fair comparison, but for the most part it shows that you can built a muscle car for just as much money or less to compete with the new versions. P.S. that Flowmaster exhaust sounds sick!
R69X3 11 hours ago
Dude it's an effing Hotchkis, how do you even pretend that's a fair comparison to the roll-off-the-factory-line SRT8? One's worth about 50K, the other probably 200-300K. I'll let you decide which is which. All told the SRT8 performed very well against such a monster competitor.
shkeni 1 day ago
You would think by the title of this video that its about a new car vs an old car, but its not. It's a video about a new car vs another heavily modified new car dressed up like an old car. Edmunds posts videos here just to confuse people.
Seancusmc 3 days ago
The new one is a piece of shit. That old one is sick though.
TheDrutters 3 days ago
My dream car right there. Those 1970s look so much nicer imo. Not as fat looking and just way more sleek.
I don't like when he says "Mo fun, check it out" and pressed down the gas. Fuck you ass hole for rubbing it in my face that i'm not there.
MegaLightbar 4 days ago
40 years of advancements doesnt get you very far? Last time i checked that challenger was not even close to stock....
randumbuller 5 days ago
Can't beat the classics.
outlawedman 2 weeks ago
if they sold them side by side wouldnt even look at the new one
SRT480 3 weeks ago 3
the pussy behind the wheel needs to stop fucking around and wind it up to 6000rpm and let us really hear that 340 sing.
Polybun 1 month ago
So they take a 1970's Challenger with tuner modified, modern, upgraded suspension, steering and brakes and put it up against a 2010 stock challenger? I would expect it to handle better if the only thing stock from 1970 is the body...
shaff912 1 month ago 2
@shaff912
Hotchkis more than likely only used their lowering rear leaf springs to keep with the theme without going overboard creating a custom one of a kind 4-link setup, to show that you can practically bolt on all their upgrades.
underscore6576 1 month ago
@shaff912 Here is the thing, it's not that radically changed. The front suspension only has the upper A-arms swapped out for the firm feel inc. tubular steel units, stiffer torsion bars and an antisway bar. All things the new car has because that's what you would do for modern tires. All they did was what the factory would have done had they had todays tires.
Polybun 1 month ago
@shaff912 Good point, it really wasn't a fair comparison.
HotChiliHead 1 week ago
If you wanna hear the engine , just buy straight pipes , even a line 4 sounds great with them -_0
FidiAdrianosTV 1 month ago in playlist Auto 6
So what this video is telling me, is the Dodge got stupider and lazier when making their cars over the years?
Megallean 1 month ago
who the fuck giggles driving a muscle car?? not a man thats who
TheDnavarro 1 month ago
2010 - 1970 = 40. Not around 40, not about 40, its 40 years difference lol
lolaturfaces 1 month ago
that guy driving the challenger is a fuckng idiot! abviously not a mopar guy and probably not even a car guy
brandon6pk 1 month ago
What about gas economy?
ChuckERZ74 2 months ago
why yellow in the all whole world of colours???
65fisherman 2 months ago
Get that plastic piece of shit outta here
xCh34pShOtx 2 months ago
@xCh34pShOtx which "piece of shit"
buttholeeat69810 2 months ago
@buttholeeat69810 Hmmm It's quite obvious the REAL Challenger is steel. Figure it out.
xCh34pShOtx 2 months ago
@xCh34pShOtx "Hmmm" there both made of steel smart ass be more specific next time
buttholeeat69810 2 months ago
@buttholeeat69810 Lol my ass, crash the 2010 "Challenger" and it's done for. Piece of cheap shit. Any classic car could withstand a crash 10x harder than the garbage of today. I've seen a Charger that got into an accident, and let's just say it looked more like a smart car afterwards ;D
xCh34pShOtx 2 months ago
@xCh34pShOtx i couldn't agree more the bumpers are made of fiberglass Fucking Fiberglass!!!
buttholeeat69810 2 months ago
What's up with the racing seats but not having 4-point racing seat belts?
OldboySaint 2 months ago
I think he is responding more to the old challengers feel sound and so on ? than the modifications. It's true it makes you what to giggle when you drive older one. I would love to have seen his response to a big block. I would say the comparison is like digital to analog something is lost in the conversion.
plumcrazzzy 2 months ago
yo dawg, we heard you like challenges so we challenged a challenger verus a challenger so you can challenge the challengers while challenging the challenge
jmacman12 2 months ago
Old>new
dogsaremykids 2 months ago
What is it with people. It's like they don't believe that "old school" was anything. I say to them, don't knock it 'til you've tried it. If it weren't for the power and brute of "old school" you guys would still be driving Corvairs and Austin Americas! Old school can be very respectable in comparisons...oh wait NO CUPHOLDERS? Sh!t...
TheZenRider1 3 months ago
id rather have the old school challenger over the new ones the old ones even look better then the new ones well to me they do
itachionetwo1 3 months ago 2
they r comparing the new one to a 340?? they should either compare hemi to hemi or the new hemi to the 440six
stonecoldtrk 4 months ago 3
did he catch a stroke ?
sixfeetmonsta 4 months ago in playlist Car Comparisons
I'll take the 70. The newer car is for P=ssies.
dutchboy25al 4 months ago 3
@dutchboy25al have you seen the cult energy series challenger?! with an engine like that i am proud to call the new challenger my generations version of the true American muscle car and also proud to say that the muscle car lives on in my generation! YouTube "cult energy challenger" and you'll see what i mean.
guardianangel1777 3 months ago
My favorite car by far, old form and new
R7300 4 months ago
Who ever made this video is a complete fucking retard, Its not stock 70 but mostky stock srt8
x0MyLILpwny0x 4 months ago
I'd choose the '70 any day of the week!
nolobede 4 months ago 2
Whats the point of doing a comparison if 1 of the cars are modified.Very stupid video.
vili567 5 months ago
I do love these new Challengers...but I have to admit the braking could be a little better. For a 3800-4200 pound car the handling is pretty impressive and has a lot better feel than my 2001 Impala LS's "magnetic" steering...but it's not quite as zippy on the highway when it comes to weaving in and out.
IcabodCrane 5 months ago
Yo , driving on lights in the middle of the day on a desert road - totally wrong .... That does not look good in any way.... WHY EVER USE THEM IN THIS TEST ???
The comparision of cars standing on lights look ridiculous !! Not better in any way.
wyrazowfkp 5 months ago
Id take the 70s challenger anytime over the 2010 why do they have to go with futureristic piles of junk when they can make it look like the true sports cars from the 60s and 70s. Now keep the 4th generation firebirds though.
TheNorthernSoulKing 5 months ago
M.assivly
O.ver
P.owered
A.nd
R.espected
JVPRCNG 5 months ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
@JVPRCNG And thats the American Way
nukeonator 3 months ago
@JVPRCNG my moms stock 67' mustang does better in the quarter mile then both of them... what does that tell u?
evilshade66 2 months ago
@evilshade66
Your mom's Rustang isn't going to out-handle that Challenger, buddy. That Challenger would smoke your mama if it was actually set up for drag instead of autocross.
djt1967ss 2 months ago
@djt1967ss did i ever say her mustang is set up for drag racing? no i didn't. i said it would beet the challenger in a quarter-mile. To let you know a 67' mustang will handle better then a big old 70' charger any day.
evilshade66 1 month ago
@djt1967ss and to let you know her mustang doesn't have any rust on it
evilshade66 1 month ago
Comment removed
manfredmuller2 2 weeks ago
@JVPRCNG M. ostly O. ver P. riced A. and R. usty
manfredmuller2 2 weeks ago
Obviously fair comparing a 340 non hemi to a 371 hemi for the drag strip. let hodgekiss bore that 340 out to somewhere in the ballpark of 355 and it would blow the doors off the new challenger at the drag
oldhipp13 5 months ago
@oldhipp13
The problem is even then...the new numbers are net flywheel, the old numbers are gross without the addons. I've seen 454 LS6's only get about 220-230 horsepower to the wheels with an automatic...the new 392 Hemi is getting 470 to the fly and around 400 to the wheels due to the ever-hungry Chrysler style autos. Think of the new one like a 727 with 2 more gears.
Either way, the new motors are just ridiculous, even the 250 hp V6 model stomps an old 327 4bbl Chevy.
IcabodCrane 5 months ago
@oldhipp13
(cont) I mean you wouldn't think so...but my parents bought one of the 2010 SE's before the extra power was given to them factory. In the completely stock format the 5 speed, 250 horsepower V6 even with the -70 horse due to the hungry transmission is faster than the old 67 Camaro RS 327 he had with a 4 speed. Even more embarassing is that the SE Challenger weighs about 600 pounds more than that Camaro did.
IcabodCrane 5 months ago
@IcabodCrane i don't now that 67 camaro is still way cooler and i'm a mopar guy
bigblockbryan1982 5 months ago
it should be a stock 1970 challenger, thats my dream car...
19DaRiO95 5 months ago
the people that made this video are stupid..
thenakeydance 5 months ago 2
the 70 is lower wider better looking, probably the same price with the suspension and louder and more brutal and awsome overall
1961pontiac 5 months ago
i will take the 1970 anytime
mejawmeyaw 5 months ago
"2010 SRT8 versus 2010 Hotchkis Challenger (fitted with a 1970 body)"
There, now the title is accurate.
dcjlove 5 months ago
idiots
you comparing stock vs modified
you must also modify the 2010 to be fair comparison DUMBASS!
raclimja16 6 months ago
fuck the new one!! that my opinion...
If I want a modern sport car I will take a corvette.
love the 70 T/A and AAR cuda
80v8camaro 6 months ago
@80v8camaro Good luck going over speed bumps haha
111WWEEBB 6 months ago
@111WWEEBB haha lol nothing is perfect
80v8camaro 6 months ago
Most people are dumb, but I hope not dumb enough to forget that the tool driving the 1970 wasn't driving a STOCK 1970 Challenger. It was modified and tuned for racing in this current age. A stock 1970 against a brand new Challenger would be destroyed along with being outdone in luxury and quality of build. Don't get me wrong I love classic muscle cars but it's not being right if the older car is modded to shit. Plus anyone who dislikes the new Challenger can fuck off, thing is ill!
111WWEEBB 6 months ago
@111WWEEBB Very true. I mean they had to mod the hell out of the 1970 Challenger just so it would be able to compete with the new challenger, and on top of that had the nerve to say not much has changed over 40 years >_> Shit put the amount of money into the new challenger that they did the old and it would be twice as beastly.
iAaronHD 6 months ago
@111WWEEBB LMAO @ "the tool driving the 1970" xD
eaglebaize 5 months ago
@111WWEEBB
Correct.
Except for the last comment ;-)
Samsgarden 5 months ago
@Samsgarden NOO!!
111WWEEBB 5 months ago
If you put slicks on the 70, probably gain a second in the 1/4
OneBadCharger 6 months ago
despite of 2010 and 2011 greatness i go to 1970 hemi of curse
zae5pm 6 months ago
la version del año 1970 es mejor lejos!!!!!
(i love nova)
chevyford100 6 months ago
BAD DRIVING in the new challenger
miller49dc 6 months ago
It's not a comparison if it's modified.
Samsgarden 6 months ago 42
@Samsgarden If it wasn't modified, then you wouldn't even need to watch the video to know the results, now would you? This is just an advertisement so hotchkis can sell their product. Its just to show you old cars can handle and aren't the myth of heavy slow and cant take a corner. Older cars are actually lighter than some of the newest models today, even imported.
that70sshow89 5 months ago
@that70sshow89
What's my incentive for watching got to do with my comment? I like this car but as far as 70's muscle goes, this is not an old vs new comparison. Old American cars DON'T handle or stop, that's why this one is modified heavily.
The myth is your's. Ask John Hotchkis.
Samsgarden 5 months ago
@Samsgarden I never understood your comment as to why you think it would be an old vs new comparison when this video never claimed to be one. They compare a Hotchkis Challenger to that of the new one. Is that not true? And its not a myth if this 70 challenger can stop in this video? I never said they could handle or stop well stock, you assumed I did. Although this 70 challenger in stock form can go through the slalom at 59mph.which isnt too bad considering todays cars run in the mid 60mph range
that70sshow89 5 months ago
@that70sshow89
ahhhh, I see, I must of got confused when I read "2010 Challenger vs. 1970 Challenger"
My bad.
Samsgarden 5 months ago
@Samsgarden Its cool. Thats what the description is for. Those usually further explain the title and whats going on in the video.
that70sshow89 5 months ago
@Samsgarden i see what your saying... but.. c'mon man. 40 years.. little mods make it fair.
silverado271 5 months ago
@Samsgarden what you said makes no sense theyre COMPARING a modified challenger to a new one to see if it can actually keep up
bigenginesismythang 4 months ago
@bigenginesismythang the title is misleading.
Samsgarden 4 months ago
@Samsgarden yeah your right thtas not a 70 and a 2010 challenger
bigenginesismythang 4 months ago
@bigenginesismythang
One would hardly think so.
Samsgarden 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Samsgarden yeah your right thtas not a 70 and a 2010 challenger
bigenginesismythang 4 months ago
@Samsgarden but engine is stock, right?
Pabcio 4 months ago
@Pabcio
That's what's being reported.
Samsgarden 4 months ago
@Samsgarden I meant you can't compare suspensions but you can compare speed and acceleration ;)
Pabcio 4 months ago
@Pabcio
I suppose; in a straight line, but straight line performance isn't being touted here.
Samsgarden 4 months ago
@Samsgarden why do you think it's not a comparison? That doesn't make sense. If it's not a comparison of two cars then what is it?
50percentFirebird 3 months ago
@50percentFirebird
Not a comparison to a stock 70 Challenger. It's modified.
Samsgarden 3 months ago
@50percentFirebird I think I understand, the title is misleading, maybe it should have read "2010 Challenger vs Hotchkiss1970 Challenger". Nevertheless I think the comparison great because it shows how old school cars built with new tech are superior in performance to the new factory cars. This result highlights the performance robbing weight gain in new cars.
50percentFirebird 3 months ago
i think you would survive a crash in the 70's one before you did in the 2010... ones metal... and ones fiberglass shit.
ericamoorexoxo 6 months ago
@ericamoorexoxo lol...think of it this way. would you prefer hitting a wall of wood or a wall of concrete? Softer car (not to the point of being cloth) absorb the impact energy over a longer time, wich help ¨cushion¨ the impact.
mat967 6 months ago
@ericamoorexoxo
So right. To call them a Challenger is an insult to the originals. Couldn't give me one; I laugh when they go by. (have a Year-One, 383hp, all original)
EnpointeOnly 6 months ago
mods to the suspension....brakes....tuning...tires.....i kinda just wanted to see a stock 1970 chally vs a new chally.....this vid was kinda pointless considered everything on the older challenger had been modified.
GTO19020 6 months ago
although i prefer the 70' challenger better there is no way that was fair the 2010 was bone stock but the 70' was tuned by john Hotchkis.
barrinout 6 months ago
There's 40 years worth of engineering in the aftermarket in the 1970's suspension, TIRES and brakes. You could even make the old one take an ipod right now. lol
1985TA355 6 months ago
Even if 2010 did manage to out perform the 1970, the 1970 has better looks by far... Older will always be better as far as im concerned.
1337xFailx1337 6 months ago
@1337xFailx1337 I somewhat agree if you're strictly talking about looks of the cars.
111WWEEBB 6 months ago
i mean dam it would mean something if the 70's challenger was not modified with suspension,brakes and everything else under the sun... like really this is not worth the hype. get a regular 70's vs a 2010 challg. then post that video
KentonHaskell 6 months ago
0:37 PAUSE! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
NFSU2PlayerPL 7 months ago
all the mods make this an unfair test. however, the old school looks better
Israelsniped120 7 months ago
This comparison is useless because they used a modified challenger.
buster20010 7 months ago
Weight is the big difference, the old ones weighed in around 3300-3600 and the new ones are bigs, usually 1,000 over that
Survivor87 7 months ago
@Survivor87 I'm sorry "pigs" but bigs may work too.
Survivor87 7 months ago
40 years of engineering in USA? Gimme a break..
Supreluud 7 months ago
es como comparar elvis con con bon jovi
CIRCULOETERNO 7 months ago
Modern brakes, suspension, wheels and tires, lightweight components (Sparco seats) says that is not really a 1970.
Plus 40 years of engineering means lots and lots of heavy safety equipment.
upgrayddable 7 months ago
the 2010 withstand a crash? i beg to differ, the 2010 is designed to save the driver, not the car, the 1970 is designed to save its tail pipes cause its usually worth more than the car its hitting or the stupid driver driving it. drive a full sized muscle car into a prius and your going to have to replace a headlight at most (on the challenger)
TheMadDooby 7 months ago
These guys forget it wasn't totally stock.. 2010 would kick it's ass but I prefer old school.
Tthrizzle85 7 months ago
are those yokohama tires on the '70?
...just seems funny to put japanese tires on the american car ;)
polypolyman 7 months ago
these guys should do this in the right way
same challenger srt8 vs an original 70's challeger hemi or the 440 six pack and BOTH STOCK
i think the point it's to test their capabilities of the legendary cars... so what's the point of taking a highly modified challeger t/a vs the new one?
montekid305 7 months ago
stock 70 will never handle the turns..
TheCinemaQC 7 months ago
k on this ...... 70 challenger is pretty well RACE modified other then the engine, those tires are about 700 bucks a piece .... and i probably cost more to built the 70 then it is to buy the 2010 .. BUT HANDS DOWN EVEN STOCK ID TAKE THE 70 !!!!
urdadddy1 7 months ago
much rather have the 70 ... but would have to go with the fire breathing 426 hemi
bigfootbowhunter 7 months ago
Where I can buy 1970 Hotchkiss Challenger?
MrCouchmen 7 months ago
I like the old one to.
s46d45m17 7 months ago
Ppl tend to forget the gas guzzling difference and the fact that anyone can work on a muscle car almost. They need computers now in cars to keep mechanics employed
stitchmorg 7 months ago
a few minor suspension changes and other tweeks beats the hell out of a maxxed out from the factory ride that has nothing left to give, put a blower on them both and you still have more room to grow with the 1970 , I love the comfort and lack of creaky plastic of the new stuff but the long tall body sides make it look too narrow and it's slolam test prove that you can put sway bars all over it it still wants to roll over when it is too top heavy.
ABurke63 7 months ago
Why dont they ever do a head to head drag race like isnt that what we all wanna see?
UtahUtesRule2010 8 months ago
mopar...is short for motor parts. representing the year were the parts were interchangeable between the challenger, charger, dart, roadrunner, and barracuda. i'm 18 and i know what most adults think they know
their27 8 months ago
that old charger has new and updated parts,brembo brakes back in the 70's?? come on.rip off video
therawreport1 8 months ago
OH MY GOD, we're 40 years into the future and we cant beat and 4 year old car. the new car designers piss me off because not only do we know know they could do better but they do too. the only reason they dont is to comform to the modern day person, so if a dad buy's a challenger for his daughter its handling wont kill her, WE WANT AN ACTUAL MUSCLE CAR COME ON!!!!!!!!
randomradicalstuff 8 months ago
@randomradicalstuff well the 70 was highly modified and modernized and custom, a stock 70 would probably get trashed but i would still take it any day over ANY new car there is
psychoclown420 8 months ago
@psychoclown420 true but i mean you would expect that in 40 years we'd be past this point
randomradicalstuff 8 months ago
@randomradicalstuff yeah... but it's weighted down with tons of modern day stuff like airbags and tons of upholstery and electronics and catalytic converters to satisfy the eco terrorists... what's important is how much the old challenger has improved by modernizing the suspension, brakes and wheels/tires etc
psychoclown420 8 months ago
@randomradicalstuff they could build something that made the '70 look like it had a slant 6 in it, but between the regulators and lobbyists in Washington, the insurance companies, and the ragheads holding us hostage for oil, it'll never happen.
And there are a lot of places where a female would belong in a car like that...but the driver's seat is not one of them.
USAon3 7 months ago
8.4 g my fuckin ass!! ive seen them pull a 9...
cadillacowboy1 8 months ago
1970 challenger is better then the new challenger is ugly
fordsuckbigtime 8 months ago
@fordsuckbigtime yo mom is ugly bitch
cadillacowboy1 8 months ago
1970s engines producing around 60hp per 1 liter of capacity is oldschool
2010 car producing 60hp per 1 liter is just sad
lobzdik 8 months ago
Nope. MOPAR actually stands for Mostly Old People and Rednecks. Sorry guys.
ruberbubba 8 months ago
New muscle cars dont have the wow factor of the old ones
bullcokjustin273 8 months ago
i'll pick the 1970 even if it's already the year 2020..
paulgnc24 8 months ago
My dream car..a classic Challenger. I think the new Challenger is by far the best looking "remake" of any other car out there like the Charger and the Mustang etc.
FancyGapClawhammer 8 months ago
Although the edmunds guy doesn't believe that 340 is stock, it is or is very close to stock. The 340 is one of, if not the best small block ever made in stock form. Once you start modifying, well that becomes a product of how much money you put into it, not so much what engine you have. In stock form though, the 340 is the best overall when it comes to power band and torque.
mine1username 8 months ago
@mine1username - Of course my comments are referring to the older small blocks. The newer engines of today are far superior when it comes to power per cubic inch, economy, and emissions. I still love the old stuff though.
mine1username 8 months ago
@mine1username - meh. Even with the Six-Pak, the 340 only put out 290 horsepower. A stock Camaro from the same era with the solid lifter LT-1 (360 hp) would lay waste to the little 340.
USAon3 7 months ago
@USAon3 Camaro, hahahahalmaoff, not even close to the legendary 340 dodge, much less the optional 426 Hemi, Chevrolet is a french name by the way just FYI !!!!!!!
curtknows101 7 months ago
@USAon3 whats funny is nowadays is the Camaro of the same 69-71 era wouldnt hold a candle to the challenger in an auction.
trafficit 7 months ago
@mine1username - on paper yes, but in reality, no way. The horsepower ratings back then were heavily contminated by marketing, and insurance reasons. Some engines were over-rated, and some were underated. All three manufacturers were guilty of this back then. I'd honestly say that the LT-1 is pretty close to true rating, but the 340 was underated. Not just horsepower though, but torque also. I've owned the 340 with a 4 barrel, and I'd bet my paycheck the 340 would win, all else being equal.
mine1username 7 months ago
This goes to show how far mopar has NOT come. haha
bphockey23 8 months ago
I met the owner of the 70s hotchkis challenger. real nice guy. that car is so gorgeous. 70s>2010 any day
BOOSTisYourFriend 8 months ago
Wow they did work on it and wonder why its so good
Canaan125 8 months ago
Engineering advancement? There was almost no engineering done to that piece of shit they call a 2010 Challenger. It's just a frankenstein car pieced together from other shitty cars and stylized to look like the classic. Nothing more.
0ukami 8 months ago
@0ukami That's what is done with every car unless you have a lambo, ferrari, bentley etc. But your right this thing is a monster
bano11323 8 months ago
@bano11323 Not quite, the new mustang performs superbly as a track and drag car, the challenger is a piece of shit. It has no power, is heavier and handles shittier than the previous challenger. Why? Because it uses a Mercedes Benz luxury chassis and tried to make it sporty. New cars like the Mustang, Corvette, GTR, etc are all essentially original designs, which is why they kick so much ass anywhere they compete.
0ukami 8 months ago
@0ukami I like how a car that does 0-60 in 4.6 sec and the quarter mile in in 13.0sec is a no power piece of shit car. SRT8 challenger as fast as first generation Viper, C5 vette, want a more current built from the ground up "original designed" car...Maserati GT S is slower than the SRT8 and none of these cars seat five. New school challenger srt8 kills the previous one, not even close...I recommend motor trend issue July 2011 when the put them head to head, its a joke. SRT8 slow....Not quite
bano11323 8 months ago
@bano11323 LOL Are you seriously trying to compare the challenger to the vette, performance wise? Are you kidding me? Wow, I thought I heard it all. The vette would blow the challenger out of the water on a track. The base model vette has the same times, yet the C5 Z06 (you didn't specify) blows it out of the water. There's no comparing a frankenstein'd bastard child of a mercedes to a superior corvette. Theres more to designing cars then taking a platform and sticking a powerful engine it
0ukami 8 months ago
@0ukami 0ukami of course I meant the C5, that's awesome how you threw theZ06 in there, probably cause you looked at the numbers and saw the SRT8 beat the C5, a car that was 40k back then!! anyway as far as Why? 9.4lbs per HP for the vette, 8.8lbs per HP for the SRT8. Less wt per hp with its 470HP engine.Top speed 174 C5 to 183 SRT8.HP to WT ratio favors Challenger . Track example, MT figure 8, 07 GT500 25.8 sec SRT8 25.3 sec. Numbers don't lie. like it or not SRT8 is fast, It's ALIVE, ALIVE
bano11323 8 months ago
@bano11323 Well, the Z06 is a model of the C5 chassis, just to let you know, since you didn't. Anyways, power per pound is just a rough estimate, not necessarily an accurate one. The most accurate way would be WHP per lb per RPM. This would take into account drivetrain losses, and also powerband figures influenced proportionately by torque. This would be more accurate. When I see the SRT8 starting to overtake the Corvette in the 24 Hours Le Mans, I will agree with you, until then...
0ukami 8 months ago
@0ukami you seem like a smart guy, which is why I don't understand why you bring up the Z06 when my argument was the SRT8 is as fast as a C5 vette, you know the one that is 40k like the srt8, now you are bringing up race cars from Le Mans against a street car??. My point was, again MY POINT was SRT8 VS C5 VETTE comparison...not Z06 which is twice the price and no way will an SRT beat that or a race car from Le Mans. BASE VETTE VS SRT8... SRT8 higher top speed and equal 0 to 60 & 1/4mile. FACT
bano11323 8 months ago
@0ukami Race cars from Le Mans against a street car?? My point to you was that SRT8 is as fast as a C5 vette, not the Z06, a car x2 the price or now a race car. The SRT8 would never ever beat those two cars..EVER. Now SRT vs C5 vette base model the one thats 40k are equal. Thats my point...SRT VS C5 VETTE. SRT higher top speed, and equal 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. But anyway you agree with me, in the 5th sentence on your 2nd reply you stated C5 equal to SRT8. Thanks you see things my way
bano11323 8 months ago
@bano11323 Well, yes I do agree that essentially they are equal from the factory, and that the difference between drivers will have a much more dramatic affect than the cars performance will. However, the Corvette does have a superior design, so it does have far more performance potential, with modifications of course. Stock for stock, the SRT8, like you said, can hold it's own well, but the inherent design flaws will surface once it is being pushed further and further.
0ukami 8 months ago
@bano11323 Thank you for forcing me to research this more intensely by the way.
0ukami 8 months ago
@bano11323 the SRT8 is also over $46 grand. For less money I could buy a Camaro SS and go faster, or spend even less for a Mustang GT and go even faster.
The new Challenger is just a 300C with a body kit, built at a compromise for profit by nostalgia. Considering what else is out there for less money, yes, the Challenger is the POS.
USAon3 7 months ago
@USAon3 Chevy dealerships have let the Camaro SS go out the lot in the mid 40 grand range, don't kid yourself on a list price. Even so you need to do more research on your numbers. SRT8 now faster than Camaro SS .fact. Challenger a 300C body kit?? Well the 300 was car of the year 2005. But anyway...put these three next to each other 20yrs from now we will see which one you'll want to be seen in...Sure the mustang is faster, but no one is looking..USA on 3?? Support american Muscle man
bano11323 7 months ago 14
@bano11323 I'm a die hard Mustang fan, & I guaranty a lot of people are looking. A lot of customers are looking too, because Dodge is being handily outsold by ford. That wouldn't be possible w/o someone, or several million paying attention. That old school dodge is awesome, but I like the new ones to. Could you imagine what would be happening had hotchkins gotten a hold of the 440 six pack, or the hemi? Now that is something worth dreaming about. I love American muscle, nothing like it anywhere.
marriedncute 6 months ago
@USAon3 if you rlly believe the challenger is a piece of shit, you truly are simply a fucking moron. Take your jealous ass home you bitch.
GTO19020 6 months ago
god the old school one looks 100000000x better!
HotShotVQ35 8 months ago
dat thing gots uh HEMI!
951prerunner 8 months ago
where's the hemi
coolgames14 8 months ago
You can take your crash safety and your aerodynamics and your noise reduction and you can shove it right up your arse. Give me a V8 and some pushrods and see what happens on the track.
doritostheking 8 months ago
anyone who has ever sent a challenger to the junk yard should be shot and killed.
Guitargod130 8 months ago
No car ANYWHERE will ever beat the 1970 challenger.. There is no car out there that I've ever seen that was better looking. I would kill for any 1970 challenger.
airsoftmama 8 months ago
i want this guy's job
Robertandguitar 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What kind of ehaust is on the 70'?
spenjax1111 8 months ago
this is a bit embarrassing for quality control in detroit... 40 years of engineering and it turns out all you can do is plug in your ipod...
MonkeyBacon08 8 months ago 26
@MonkeyBacon08 u forgot airbag xD
coolgames14 8 months ago